Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
” A 16 year old isnt a 6 year old , you can get married at 16 and its above the criminal age of responsibility- Bolgers killers were ten yet condemned as knowing right from wrong , this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
Jamie Bolger’s killers tortured and murdered a baby boy.They did not try and pinch a set of ladders.
No a 16 year old isn’t a 6 year old, its 10 very quick years later. Yes you can get married at 16, mainly because at 16 most young people are physically sexually mature. You can’t have men of 18 and 20 full of testosterone and bulging ( those things Scep called you ) running around not ‘allowed to have sex’ , and if you are allowed to have sex obviously you are allowed to marry. It doesn’t make them ‘mentally’ mature though, they can’t vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, by cigarettes , etc etc .
” this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
I seriously doubt that anyone would think the risk of entering an old mans house ( with intent to rob ) would mean they may die, be they 16 or 60 !!
The Law ( which you may say is an ass and in some cases I’d bloody agree) says you can’t murder someone for stealing, luckily we’ve moved on a bit from The Ten Commandments, a person stealing, for whatever reason or motive doesn’t expect to die for doing it, as that is Murder. Life is far too precious to be flippantly snuffed out.
I’m not sure how you can correctly term the law an ass but then go on use it as a moral template in order to ascertain right from wrong? As we have said many times on this board, laws are transient changing from one generation to another where 200 years ago you could get hung for wandering onto a monarchs estate by mistake- the laws of today will be regarded as equally ridiculous in another 200 years. The “law” is simply what a bunch of bickering, guffawing idiots in the houses of parliament say it is and shouldn’t be used as a guide to form your own views on like an unthinking sheep.
Another pet hate of mine is this nonsense of “mental health” that’s reeled out as an excuse to mitigate crime. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve read about a depressed drug addict on his 54th conviction having a defence solicitor stating the poor lamb has realised the error of his ways and is now in rehabilitation with ” mental health problems.” If I say I’m depressed and go out and gut someone like a fish, backed up by a little letter from a doctor confirming my “mental health” problems, does that mean I get a lesser sentence than someone who is a happy go lucky type of chappy singing jingle bells? You only have to read the boards and chatrooms here to realise how many mentally ill individuals are about in society, do they get carte blanche to commit crime because they are 3 sheets to the wind? Unless someone is a complete vegetable with no recognition of who or where they are, there should be no mitigation or sympathy for mental health…I doubt Jack the Ripper was the full schilling somehow, but unlikely had he been caught we would have a collection of sympathising snowflakes prevalent in todays society stating he was suffering mental health issues and need help with his rehabilitation and his addiction to grapes etc.
I used the eg of Bolgers killers not to draw parallels with severity of crime, but to illustrate how at the age of ten you are deemed criminally culpable so the full force of ” the law” should also apply to a 16 year old.
Ultimately Martin was in a dark farmhouse and couldnt see how old these two thieves were unless he politely put the gun down and asked for a birth certificate of course. The thread title describing him as ” evil” for shooting two figures in the dark having been robbed previously is utterly ridiculous and the only reason many are up in arms about it, is the age of Barrass which Martin couldnt possibly know anyway.
i understand why you used the Bolger case as an example, I agree the full force of the law should be used against a 16 year old and had they been caught breaking and entering one would hope it would be, but they weren’t caught stealing, they were murderd , premeditatedly , so I don’t see your point there.
I wasn’t using the law as a moral template. I was using it to point out that it is illigal to murder someone for trying to steal from you, today, in this country. In 100 yrs time that may well have changed. You may not agree with the law but that’s too bad . No he had no idea how old they were when they broke in, in the dark I agree, they could have been 12.
Whatever your personal views on mental health are is irrelavent . I didn’t suggest the victim had mental health issues. I was pointing out that not all 16 year olds are the same. Are you suggesting that if the lad had let’s say for instance Downs Syndrome, and was desperate to impress his pals he deserved to have a hole blown through him ? Mental Health issues does not automatically equate to druggie. As I said above, at 16 you may be sexually mature but are far from mentally mature, which is why you can legally have sex but are not deemed responsible enough to do plenty of other things, such as drink , vote, drive etc etc . So saying suggesting a 16 yr old is fully mature and therefore fully culpable is misleading , in my opinion
Well he clearly wasn’t killed prematurely in the eyes of the law as it was downgraded to manslaughter. The age thing is largely irrelevant, there are adults with a very low mental age who are children mentally- the figures he shot in the dark could have been any age so even in law terms it becomes a moot point. Two figures in the dark were back to burgle him and he shot them- it doesn’t matter whether creepy scepticals heart rending rendition of mum being played out uttered by the kid is taken into account. Those are the facts which is why he only did 3 years for manslaughter ( too long IMO)
Well actually in the eyes of the law it was a premeditated (not premature)Murder which is why he got a life sentence. Tony Martins sentence was reduced because his new defence team came up with fresh evidence. Martin’s lawyers presented evidence relating to where he was standing when he fired the shots and whether he could be said to have acted with “reasonable force” in self defence. The Appeal judges actually rejected that evidence. They reduced his sentence based on a psychiatric report that showed he suffered from an extreme paranoid personality disorder. His sentence was reduced to one of Manslaugter, specifically on the grounds of diminished responsibility, so basically, he got off with Murder because of mental health issues ! His sentence was 5 years , he served 3 years of that sentence, the maximum you can serve with good behaviour, he could have been out earlier had he shown any remorse.
No Linda. The words Prig and Prick have totally different meanings, nothing to do with spelling.
Prig – a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others.
Prick, well you can put whatever meaning you wish to, however 1 meaning is also apt on this occasion
Oh and btw Scep, you’ve had a few days now, could possibly answer my question, as silly and unimportant as it is…..
What exactly do you mean by this :
”There is no historical law which says that Britian will avoid the fate of empires like Spain in the past…once the mightiest empire in the world, declining gradually and then quickly into a stagnant economy, desperately poor…..”
Firstly, what do you mean by ‘no historical law’ ? Totally baffling statement
Secondly, what, exactly, are you blaming Spain’s problems on ? When you say ”once the mightiest empire in the world’,’ are you talking 17th century ? the 1600’s ? just for clarification please.
”The comment by the Moose that all economists are right-wing is bizarre. If you don’t know anything, that’s fine, but why pretend that you do?”
More lies and misrepresentation , as well as patronising and rude all in one little paragraph,well done you !!!
Did I actually say that all economists are right wing ? Did I ? Please show me where I said that ? If you are referring to me saying this :
”
Economists are, by the nature of the job, going to be seen as leaning to the political right, ”then I suggest you visit Specsavers. The two statements are clearly not the same nor do they mean the same.OK, maybe had I said ”Successful economists ( in a monetary way)..etc etc ” it may have been clearer, but to anyone who isn’t biased to anything I type it was obvious what my meaning was. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on any of this, quite the opposite, unlike you, are you however saying that I know nothing ? Just for clarification please ? Well the fact I mentioned a book Jamie may like certainly got your knickers in a twist didn’t it ?
It’s gone from me recommending a book to Jamie to you jumping in and redirecting the whole show yet again. Minford, to Thatcher …. more false, misleading, wishy washy and unbelievable directions than a bad episode of Crossroads …. Someone get him a green wooly hat please…
I’ll repeat it because it is so apt…. Insufferable Prig. Sorry if you think I’m once again ‘hurling personal insults’ at you, but in my opinion, this is how you behave, your’e just rude in a different way. Funny the way your ‘name ‘ for me changes, depending on what mood you are in , MsM, M , Moosey, Moose, or in a bad and rude mood The Moose, (which I believe you chastised MrQ for doing ….) so if you dish it expect it back.
It’s cold out, put ya hat on.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by mooosey88.
1 member liked this post.
” A 16 year old isnt a 6 year old , you can get married at 16 and its above the criminal age of responsibility- Bolgers killers were ten yet condemned as knowing right from wrong , this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
Jamie Bolger’s killers tortured and murdered a baby boy.They did not try and pinch a set of ladders.
No a 16 year old isn’t a 6 year old, its 10 very quick years later. Yes you can get married at 16, mainly because at 16 most young people are physically sexually mature. You can’t have men of 18 and 20 full of testosterone and bulging ( those things Scep called you ) running around not ‘allowed to have sex’ , and if you are allowed to have sex obviously you are allowed to marry. It doesn’t make them ‘mentally’ mature though, they can’t vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, by cigarettes , etc etc .
” this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
I seriously doubt that anyone would think the risk of entering an old mans house ( with intent to rob ) would mean they may die, be they 16 or 60 !!
The Law ( which you may say is an ass and in some cases I’d bloody agree) says you can’t murder someone for stealing, luckily we’ve moved on a bit from The Ten Commandments, a person stealing, for whatever reason or motive doesn’t expect to die for doing it, as that is Murder. Life is far too precious to be flippantly snuffed out.
I’m not sure how you can correctly term the law an ass but then go on use it as a moral template in order to ascertain right from wrong? As we have said many times on this board, laws are transient changing from one generation to another where 200 years ago you could get hung for wandering onto a monarchs estate by mistake- the laws of today will be regarded as equally ridiculous in another 200 years. The “law” is simply what a bunch of bickering, guffawing idiots in the houses of parliament say it is and shouldn’t be used as a guide to form your own views on like an unthinking sheep.
Another pet hate of mine is this nonsense of “mental health” that’s reeled out as an excuse to mitigate crime. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve read about a depressed drug addict on his 54th conviction having a defence solicitor stating the poor lamb has realised the error of his ways and is now in rehabilitation with ” mental health problems.” If I say I’m depressed and go out and gut someone like a fish, backed up by a little letter from a doctor confirming my “mental health” problems, does that mean I get a lesser sentence than someone who is a happy go lucky type of chappy singing jingle bells? You only have to read the boards and chatrooms here to realise how many mentally ill individuals are about in society, do they get carte blanche to commit crime because they are 3 sheets to the wind? Unless someone is a complete vegetable with no recognition of who or where they are, there should be no mitigation or sympathy for mental health…I doubt Jack the Ripper was the full schilling somehow, but unlikely had he been caught we would have a collection of sympathising snowflakes prevalent in todays society stating he was suffering mental health issues and need help with his rehabilitation and his addiction to grapes etc.
I used the eg of Bolgers killers not to draw parallels with severity of crime, but to illustrate how at the age of ten you are deemed criminally culpable so the full force of ” the law” should also apply to a 16 year old.
Ultimately Martin was in a dark farmhouse and couldnt see how old these two thieves were unless he politely put the gun down and asked for a birth certificate of course. The thread title describing him as ” evil” for shooting two figures in the dark having been robbed previously is utterly ridiculous and the only reason many are up in arms about it, is the age of Barrass which Martin couldnt possibly know anyway.
i understand why you used the Bolger case as an example, I agree the full force of the law should be used against a 16 year old and had they been caught breaking and entering one would hope it would be, but they weren’t caught stealing, they were murderd , premeditatedly , so I don’t see your point there.
I wasn’t using the law as a moral template. I was using it to point out that it is illigal to murder someone for trying to steal from you, today, in this country. In 100 yrs time that may well have changed. You may not agree with the law but that’s too bad . No he had no idea how old they were when they broke in, in the dark I agree, they could have been 12.Whatever your personal views on mental health are is irrelavent . I didn’t suggest the victim had mental health issues. I was pointing out that not all 16 year olds are the same. Are you suggesting that if the lad had let’s say for instance Downs Syndrome, and was desperate to impress his pals he deserved to have a hole blown through him ? Mental Health issues does not automatically equate to druggie. As I said above, at 16 you may be sexually mature but are far from mentally mature, which is why you can legally have sex but are not deemed responsible enough to do plenty of other things, such as drink , vote, drive etc etc . So saying suggesting a 16 yr old is fully mature and therefore fully culpable is misleading , in my opinion
” A 16 year old isnt a 6 year old , you can get married at 16 and its above the criminal age of responsibility- Bolgers killers were ten yet condemned as knowing right from wrong , this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
Jamie Bolger’s killers tortured and murdered a baby boy.They did not try and pinch a set of ladders.
No a 16 year old isn’t a 6 year old, its 10 very quick years later. Yes you can get married at 16, mainly because at 16 most young people are physically sexually mature. You can’t have men of 18 and 20 full of testosterone and bulging ( those things Scep called you ) running around not ‘allowed to have sex’ , and if you are allowed to have sex obviously you are allowed to marry. It doesn’t make them ‘mentally’ mature though, they can’t vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, by cigarettes , etc etc .
” this lad knew the risks of entering an old mans house.”
I seriously doubt that anyone would think the risk of entering an old mans house ( with intent to rob ) would mean they may die, be they 16 or 60 !!
The Law ( which you may say is an ass and in some cases I’d bloody agree) says you can’t murder someone for stealing, luckily we’ve moved on a bit from The Ten Commandments, a person stealing, for whatever reason or motive doesn’t expect to die for doing it, as that is Murder. Life is far too precious to be flippantly snuffed out.
2 members liked this post.
It is a difficult one, I think had the situation been just slightly different in circumstances we would all probably agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself if you feel threatened, However, Mr Martin wasn’t a scared poor old pensioner was he ? He was a nasty vicious man who had shot at someone for stealing apples ? seriously ? If he had of killed a teenager by shooting him with a shot gun from a distance for climbing and stealing some of his apples would the nation have applauded him then ? doubt it… He knew they were coming, to me that is the crux of it, he could have prevented it in many ways, just firing a gun into the air would have scared the shyte outta them and they’d have run, he didn’t want to prevent it though did he, he wanted to kill or injure one of them. Lets not lump all 16 year olds in to one bracket either. Some are smart clever young people, brought up to know right from wrong, some will never have felt the need to steal and had very privileged up bringings, some may have barely had any education and terrible role models as parents, dragged up in a society which gives them nothing unless they take it and that’s all they know and how they and their parents have lived. Does that make it their fault ? Some 16 year olds may have learning difficulties and / or suffer peer pressure, or be used by others. Mr Martin wasn’t being attacked, that was made clear, he was being robbed by kids, so if you can shoot a teenager at point blank range for stealing what are you allowed to do to someone breaking in and trying to rape your wife or daughter , shoot them ? Take their life ? oh no hang on, that’s already been done ….
Not sure if Somer or Rude have kids , I suspect not, but could be wrong, and that isnt a judgement in anyway, however, when you are a parent you realise 16 is very very young. They think they know it all, I did, I bet most of us did . We didn’t and They Don’t, and when they are older they then realise they didn’t know a damn thing, and before anyone says ” my kids would never do that anything like that”, soooo many parents have thought that only to get a rude awakening…
2 members liked this post.
Economists are, by the nature of the job, going to be seen as leaning to the political right, ( not socially right wing which is where scep gets confused) especially if they advocate Free Trade
I know !! lets have a chat with a left wing economist eh ?
Someone go dig Karl Marx up !!!
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by mooosey88.
Bootle is a highly successful , highly acclaimed free trade economist and author. It’s nothing to do with Maggie ! Stop trying to twist everything in yet another direction ! Scaremongering , it’s quite pathetic !
OK let’s bring some sense to this the only thing leave voters will be remembered for is breaking up the UK.
Scotland will leave
Enjoy your legacy
Who cares !!
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by
